Is It Becoming a Crime to Think?

[kate...@gmail.com]

Before I begin here, I think perhaps I should make my own beliefs very
clear to any potential readers. First of all, the crime of "sedition"
has always been defined as advocating the overthrow of a legal
government by force or violence.

Sedition is a crime. It should be a crime, and I make a very careful
effort not to commit it, whatever my level of personal rage.
Furthermore, I do believe that the crime of sedition should be
punished to the fullest possible extent of the law. In the course of
a legally declared and prosecuted war, one can even stretch the crime
of sedition to treason, and that is no accident.

The crime of "terrorism" is defined as using violence, or the threat
of violence, against innocent persons to create a climate of fear.

Terrorism is a crime. It should be a crime. It is a crime I find
personally abhorrent and morally repugnant. Furthermore, I believe
that genuine terrorists - persons who have actually committed such a
crime - should be punished to the fullest possible extent of the law.
Read this carefully. I said the "fullest possible extent of the
law." The law does not embrace "disappearing" people, or torturing
them, or holding them indefinitely without charge and without trial.
It does provide for a speedy trial, and if a conviction by a jury of
the accused's peers is the result of that trial, it does provide for
lengthy prison sentences - and in cases where deaths result, even for
the legal application of the death penalty.

Despite the silly rhetoric of some politicians over the last few
decades, you really can't declare a war against a crime. Crimes call
for careful investigation, followed by the apprehension and trial of
the most likely suspects. Crimes do not call for the invasion of
sovereign nations, nor for a war on individual liberties here at home.

Terrorism is a crime. It is not a war. One smart and competent
police detective is worth a thousand armies when it comes to solving
and prosecuting any crime, large or small.

The dangers of declaring a war when you have no clearly defined
sovereign nation as an enemy should be readily apparent to an idiot.
How can you sue for peace when there is no one with the authority to
hear your plea? How can you sign a treaty with a non-existent
nation? Make no mistake, the "war on terror" is not intended to end
in your lifetime, or you children's lifetimes, or your grandchildren's
lifetimes. It will never end if the planners have their way. It is
far, far too lucrative.

On the other hand, if war is your actual objective, a terrorist crime
can be very helpful in swaying public opinion, particularly the sort
of heinous and extremely visible crimes of September 11, 2001.
Civilization has a long and distinguished history of this sort of
thing. Just to name a few examples:

1. The Reichstag fire in 1933 Germany.

2. The sinking of the Lusitania, which was carrying munitions in
violation of international law.

3. The sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbor.

4. Pearl Harbor, which was provoked and allowed to go forward to
force our entry into WWII.

5. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which simply never happened.

6. The babies and incubator testimony which launched Gulf War I.

It has recently been suggested that one symptom of "radicalization"
and "home-grown terrorism" is questioning the government myth
surrounding what occurred on September 11, 2001. This comes as no
particular surprise to me. MSNBC - which is owned by General Electric
(a major defense contractor and beneficiary of our "war on terror"
wars) and can hardly be accused of being "fringe media" - conducted a
poll in September of last year which resulted in 67% of Americans
believing that the government is lying about the events of 9/11.
Throw in the 5.3% who are not sure, and that makes a whopping 72.3% of
America that isn't comfortable with the official story.

No surprise there. The official story of 9/11 just doesn't pass the
"smell" test even for a hayfever sufferer in the height of ragweed
season.

Just in case you were wondering, you can't get that many Americans to
agree on liking a particular cuisine, let alone something as important
to us all as this particular issue. You don't believe me? Write
Zogby and ask him. Any professional in the polling business knows
this.

These kinds of polls are scaring the $#%$# out of our fearless
leaders, and they should be. There are 300,000,000+ resident
Americans today. More than two thirds believe the government is lying
about the most heinous crime ever committed on U.S. soil. A
substantial percentage of those same Americans no longer believe that
our elections are free and honest. I'd be scared, too. All thoughts
of sedition aside, those 300 million Americans will not put up with
this forever. How or when they will resolve it is yet to be
determined, but it will happen. You can take that to the bank.

The Internet has been specifically named in recent legislation as a
means for "radicalization" of ordinary Americans. Yep. True without
a doubt. The Internet is the only remaining source of free and
unbiased news in the world, and the real news would piss Mother
Theresa off on a daily basis. The Internet has a lot of crap, too,
but most Americans can tell the difference.

How our government has reacted to this perceived threat is perhaps the
most interesting and revealing point of all.

They are using the threat of violence (rendition, or kidnapping in
proper legal terms) to create a climate of fear in the United States
that they hope and pray will make folks with the faintest glimmering
of a brain - and therefore suspicions concerning the origins and
masterminds of 9/11 - shut up and go away, instead of demanding
impeachment and a reform of our election systems.

Let me see now, "terrorism" is the use of violence or the threat of
violence against innocent persons to create a climate of fear.

Who are the real terrorists here? The mythical nineteen Arab fanatics
with boxcutters who somehow defeated all of NORAD on 9/11? Or our own
government?

You tell me.